unprecedented military co-operation between France and Britain

  Unprecedented treaties between France and Great Britain enable the both countries to share their military expertise, means and costs.

  On Tuesday the second of November 2010, a summit in Lancaster House in London, saw the meeting of French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, about two military co-operation treaties.

  The two former “hereditary enemies of the continent” (according to David Cameron) made the twelve year old project a reality. Indeed the idea of this co-operation had been launched at the summit of Saint-Malo in 1998, and seemed have been forgotten since.

  But in this period of cuts and economic austerity, it probably appeared to the leaders that sharing their military means would be the best way to remain great military powers, saving money in the same way. As a consequence, this co-operation can be considered more as a pragmatic choice than a real will of rapprochement, all the more so as the decision is criticized in the both countries.

  These two treaties comprise some decisive decisions such as the simulation in 2014 of the co-operating functioning of their nuclear arsenal in an area near to Dijon, in France, and in the Atomic weapon research in Aldermaston, in England.

  Actually, the jointing nuclear research is one of the most important and surprising point of the treaties, but the creation in 2011 of an expeditionary force, composed by around five thousands soldiers, land, marine and air equipments from the both countries, is to impress some observers. This force is no permanent, but will act on precise events, ruled by international organisations such as UE, OTAN, or ONU.

  In 2020, the sharing of their aircraft carriers and the jointing maintenance of the future transport aircraft “A400M” will enable France and Britain to have collaborative air equipment, in order to use it jointly without any problem of agreement. The co-operating training of their pilots and the common effort to improve their warheads industries will turn these two countries in one huge military power.

  But what about the loss of sovereignty that some opponents fear? In Cameron s party for example, some politicians (euro sceptics or not) don t want to abandon the UK s capacity of military decisions to France. The Daily Express even published “British army under French orders”. In France too, the treaty doesn t make everybody agree: Eric Zemmour for example, a french journalist in “Le Figaro” and consultant for the radio RTL, known for his “euro scepticism” and his polemical ideas, declared the Wednesday 3^rd of November, on this radio station: “C’est un enterrement de la défense européenne” (it is the death of the European defence), arguing that the European countries cut too much their budget for the defence, and abandon it to USA, historical partner of England.

  Despite of these oppositions, the both leaders remain quite calm and reassuring. According to David Cameron, “The point is not to reduce French or English sovereignty or sharing the nuclear dissuasion [...] we will involve our countries only if they both agree for the mission.” And to the ones who doubt about the France loyalty, the Prime Minister answers: “the comeback of France in the OTAN makes it remains a natural partner for us”. But it s difficult to occult that even in its own frontiers, a lot of disapprobation exists about France comeback!

  For Nicolas Sarkozy, this treaty was a necessity in a more and more “dangerous world”. “At the moment when some observers say that Europe is suffering from a strategic narrowing, we show, English and French, that it s not the case”. This treaty means for the two countries a “level of trust never equalized in the whole History” the president said.

  But according to Fabio Liberti, the research director of the French IRIS (Institute of International and Strategic Relations), this treaty is a sign of the decline of their respective armies. “Nowadays already, it is obvious that European armies are unable to lead a major conflict. If you look at Afghanistan, France and Britain, sending scores of soldiers on the scene, cannot really express their opinion on the American strategy in the conflict, and play less and less a decisive military role.”

  So which side to choose, the reassuring one which turns this treaty in the best way to guarantee a good security policy in Europe and all over the world? Or the other one, which argues that this kind of treaty only proves the impossibility for European countries to remain great military power compare to America?